ORDER

Vipul M. Pancholi, J. – The present petition has been listed before us pursuant to the administrative order passed by Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice. The learned Single Judge framed three issues while not agreeing with the view taken by another learned Single Judge and thereafter observed that the records be placed before Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

2. The learned Single Judge has referred the present matter to a Division Bench for answering the following issues: –

“(i) Whether the sub-clause (gha) of clause (iii) of the Notification dated 10.12.2002 issued by the Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar by which Rule 529 of the then Bihar Jail Manual was substituted would cover the case of life convict who is serving sentence for committing an offence in which death is one of the punishments.

(ii) Whether a life convict whose case is covered under Section 433A Cr.P.C. may be granted pre-mature release on any ground whatsoever provided by way of a rule made by the State Government in form of a subordinate piece of legislation.

(iii) Whether the petitioner may be allowed to raise his claim for pre-mature release on the basis of the judgment of the learned coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan Yadav considering the date of his conviction, even as his case is found covered under Section 433A Cr.P.C.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. The petitioner was made an accused in Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 36 of 1985 registered for committing an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It is the case of the petitioner that he was released on bail during the pendency of the trial. However, thereafter the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, passed the judgment and order dated 24.08.1990 in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 1989, by which the petitioner has been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

3.1. The petitioner challenged the said order by preferring an appeal being Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 370 of 1990. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the appeal also, he was on bail and the sentence imposed by the trial court was suspended. However, this Court vide judgment and order dated 04.09.2012 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and thereby affirmed the judgment and order passed by the trial court.

3.2. The petitioner thereafter challenged the orders passed by the trial court as well as this Court by preferring Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ultimately, S.L.P. (Criminal) Diary No. 9621 of 2019 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 13.09.2019.

3.3. It is the case of the petitioner that as an undertrial prisoner as well as after dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner, he has served more than 07 years of actual imprisonment. It is further case of the petitioner that he has completed 68 years of age and, therefore, in terms of the policy framed by the State Government, as contained in Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002, he, having completed more than 65 years of age and 07 years in incarceration, would be entitled to be considered for premature release. It is also the case of the petitioner that on the request of the Jail Superintendent of Khudi Ram Bose Central Jail, Muzaffarpur, contained in Memo No. 4887 dated 30.05.2022 and letter dated 31.05.2022, the Medical Board assessed the age of the petitioner and found his age between 65-70 years.

3.4. The petitioner has, therefore, placed reliance upon Clause(iii)(d) of the Policy dated 10.12.2002 framed by the State Government for premature release by contending that, as per the said clause, a life convict is required to be released prematurely on completion of 65 years of age, if he has completed custody of 07 years with remission.

3.5. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred the present petition in which the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: –

“(I) For issuance of